Reply #167: Excuse me?

[WillParkinson]

Your original comment was to someone who said they were vegetarian. You told them not to sermonize. Their reply wasn't even directed at you. "If you can't see or choose not to understand the other side of this issue, then that is your folly."

My comment, which was directed at you, was about people not trying to understand each other, hence 'goes both ways'.

You then said, 'then do please explain. I'm all ears. So far, the "other" side has no argument. They sit on their high horse looking down on us omnivores.'

You were the one who said they sit on their high horse looking down on omnivores. I never said that I was looking down on anyone. My original point was that neither side was willing to hear the other because both sides are sure they are in the right.

My further discussion was about your point of the necessity of culling animals to prevent disease and starvation. People are responsible for the problem. They have taken the land the animals use. They've wiped out the natural predators of the animals. They poison the environment that everyone depends on.

People breed far more than the majority of animals and are responsible for the majority of woes on the planet. Many are starving and diseased but people seem to think they're above the animals, forgetting they, too, are animals.

You asked me what my solution was. I already said I do not have one. The best I can come up with is education. Educate everyone to understand their part in the ecosystem. But, see, there's a problem there, too. Because then you're 'indoctrinating' people and certain types (mostly Republicans) will fight that tooth and nail.

As I said earlier, we'll have to agree to disagree. Neither of us will change the mind of the other so it's best to just shake hands and walk away.